RE: PH Carpool: Ferrari Mondial
Discussion
Funnily enough I was reading a contemporary review of an earlier, 3.2-litre Mondial earlier this week. The verdict was less than positive, if it had been written today about a current Ferrari I suspect the writer would no longer be allowed access to the press fleet...
That said, I know the Mondial T is a different and much improved animal. Every review I recall of the T said that it was actually a better car than the 348. Not as fast but better handling, less likely to catch you out and more comfortable to boot.
The one thing that, more than anything, annoyed me about the comment in Top Gear's "Worst Cars" DVD where the Mondial comes under scrutiny is where they say that "a Golf GTI is faster to 60" or something like that. A current GTI, maybe but such is the nature of progress and is probably faster accelerating than a lot of exotic poster cars.
Anyway, I digress, I'm not a huge fan of Ferraris but a blue Mondial T is right up my street.
That said, I know the Mondial T is a different and much improved animal. Every review I recall of the T said that it was actually a better car than the 348. Not as fast but better handling, less likely to catch you out and more comfortable to boot.
The one thing that, more than anything, annoyed me about the comment in Top Gear's "Worst Cars" DVD where the Mondial comes under scrutiny is where they say that "a Golf GTI is faster to 60" or something like that. A current GTI, maybe but such is the nature of progress and is probably faster accelerating than a lot of exotic poster cars.
Anyway, I digress, I'm not a huge fan of Ferraris but a blue Mondial T is right up my street.
fourwheelsteer said:
Funnily enough I was reading a contemporary review of an earlier, 3.2-litre Mondial earlier this week. The verdict was less than positive, if it had been written today about a current Ferrari I suspect the writer would no longer be allowed access to the press fleet...
That said, I know the Mondial T is a different and much improved animal. Every review I recall of the T said that it was actually a better car than the 348. Not as fast but better handling, less likely to catch you out and more comfortable to boot.
The one thing that, more than anything, annoyed me about the comment in Top Gear's "Worst Cars" DVD where the Mondial comes under scrutiny is where they say that "a Golf GTI is faster to 60" or something like that. A current GTI, maybe but such is the nature of progress and is probably faster accelerating than a lot of exotic poster cars.
Anyway, I digress, I'm not a huge fan of Ferraris but a blue Mondial T is right up my street.
It's oft quoted, and is actually true. That said, I know the Mondial T is a different and much improved animal. Every review I recall of the T said that it was actually a better car than the 348. Not as fast but better handling, less likely to catch you out and more comfortable to boot.
The one thing that, more than anything, annoyed me about the comment in Top Gear's "Worst Cars" DVD where the Mondial comes under scrutiny is where they say that "a Golf GTI is faster to 60" or something like that. A current GTI, maybe but such is the nature of progress and is probably faster accelerating than a lot of exotic poster cars.
Anyway, I digress, I'm not a huge fan of Ferraris but a blue Mondial T is right up my street.
The Mondial 8 was indeed slower 0-60 than contemporary Golf GTIs.
Mondy 8 was 9.4 seconds, MK1 Golf was 8.4 in 1.8 guise and 8.7 as a 1.6.
Tells you nothing about the overall experience, though.
Justayellowbadge said:
It's oft quoted, and is actually true.
The Mondial 8 was indeed slower 0-60 than contemporary Golf GTIs.
Mondy 8 was 9.4 seconds, MK1 Golf was 8.4 in 1.8 guise and 8.7 as a 1.6.
Tells you nothing about the overall experience, though.
9.4? Didn't realise they lacked quite so much pace. How did they make it so slow, is it just heavy or are the figures a bit conservative?The Mondial 8 was indeed slower 0-60 than contemporary Golf GTIs.
Mondy 8 was 9.4 seconds, MK1 Golf was 8.4 in 1.8 guise and 8.7 as a 1.6.
Tells you nothing about the overall experience, though.
Still, as you say, it tells you nothing of the experience. Most things over 10 years old are, by modern measurements, appalling. Makes them no less desirable.
Justayellowbadge said:
It's oft quoted, and is actually true.
The Mondial 8 was indeed slower 0-60 than contemporary Golf GTIs.
Mondy 8 was 9.4 seconds, MK1 Golf was 8.4 in 1.8 guise and 8.7 as a 1.6.
Tells you nothing about the overall experience, though.
Ah, I must be looking at the wrong figures. The ones I found were for the QV in 1984 which says 0-60 in 6.7seconds.The Mondial 8 was indeed slower 0-60 than contemporary Golf GTIs.
Mondy 8 was 9.4 seconds, MK1 Golf was 8.4 in 1.8 guise and 8.7 as a 1.6.
Tells you nothing about the overall experience, though.
fourwheelsteer said:
Justayellowbadge said:
It's oft quoted, and is actually true.
The Mondial 8 was indeed slower 0-60 than contemporary Golf GTIs.
Mondy 8 was 9.4 seconds, MK1 Golf was 8.4 in 1.8 guise and 8.7 as a 1.6.
Tells you nothing about the overall experience, though.
Ah, I must be looking at the wrong figures. The ones I found were for the QV in 1984 which says 0-60 in 6.7seconds.The Mondial 8 was indeed slower 0-60 than contemporary Golf GTIs.
Mondy 8 was 9.4 seconds, MK1 Golf was 8.4 in 1.8 guise and 8.7 as a 1.6.
Tells you nothing about the overall experience, though.
The 8, not so much.
CampDavid said:
9.4? Didn't realise they lacked quite so much pace. How did they make it so slow, is it just heavy or are the figures a bit conservative?
Still, as you say, it tells you nothing of the experience. Most things over 10 years old are, by modern measurements, appalling. Makes them no less desirable.
I think the Mondial was a fair bit heftier than the 308 and I'm not sure that the 3.0-litre V8 was hugely powerful, IIRC it lost some power over the years in order to meet emissions regulations. But for most people a sub 10 second 0-60 time back then would still have been respectable.Still, as you say, it tells you nothing of the experience. Most things over 10 years old are, by modern measurements, appalling. Makes them no less desirable.
I quite like the look of Mondials but can't really see the economic attraction of owning one, given many modern cars will do what it does as well, possibly better and certainly cheaper.
OK, it is a Ferrari and that has to count for something but I could never personally stomach a £1700 bill ven though i could afford to - that's a holiday.
I am also concerned about the dress code, which your photo suggests does not extend to persons coming for a look!
OK, it is a Ferrari and that has to count for something but I could never personally stomach a £1700 bill ven though i could afford to - that's a holiday.
I am also concerned about the dress code, which your photo suggests does not extend to persons coming for a look!
IIRC the poor on paper 0-60 time was due to needing an extra gearchange just before 60 mph, correct me if I am mistaken.
Does anyone know the 0-100mph times for the Mondial and its contemporaries?
I recall the first time I saw a Mondial 8, it would have been less tha 3 yrs old and was already rusting, very sad.
Does anyone know the 0-100mph times for the Mondial and its contemporaries?
I recall the first time I saw a Mondial 8, it would have been less tha 3 yrs old and was already rusting, very sad.
I have an original sales brochure from the time, the 0-100kph is 6.3........apparently. The 348 on the same sales brochure says 5.6. It also quoted acceleration to 1000meters as 25.8 and 24.8 for the 348.
mind you the most impressive element of the sales brochure for the mondial T is the LP record sized gate fold book that folds out 7 times either side to give you full side/ back/ front and engine pictures.......no words. That is cool.
mind you the most impressive element of the sales brochure for the mondial T is the LP record sized gate fold book that folds out 7 times either side to give you full side/ back/ front and engine pictures.......no words. That is cool.
I can't find any record of any test of the original Mondial but Autocar tested the 3.2QV in 1986 as follows:
270hp
224 lb/ft torque
143mph
0-60 - 6.8
30-70 - 6.3
1/4 mile - 14.9
MPG - Overall 16.8 Touring 20.1
Don't have the actual test so much of the above is meaningless without the context of test conditions.
You also have to appreciate that thesesorts of figures were not uncommon. For example the Ferrari Testarossa hit 60 in 5.2 (slower than a modern Mustang)and the quarter in 13.5.
Comparators:
Aston V8 was 6.6/14.8
XJS V12 was 6.5/14.9
Thema 8.32 was 7.2/15.2
560SEL was 7.1/15.8
928 - 5.5/13.8 (GT - 5.6/13.8)
M635CSi - 6.0/14.6
I have deliberately given 4 seater times not the equivalent although if you counted a 911 Turbo, that would be the benchmark.
270hp
224 lb/ft torque
143mph
0-60 - 6.8
30-70 - 6.3
1/4 mile - 14.9
MPG - Overall 16.8 Touring 20.1
Don't have the actual test so much of the above is meaningless without the context of test conditions.
You also have to appreciate that thesesorts of figures were not uncommon. For example the Ferrari Testarossa hit 60 in 5.2 (slower than a modern Mustang)and the quarter in 13.5.
Comparators:
Aston V8 was 6.6/14.8
XJS V12 was 6.5/14.9
Thema 8.32 was 7.2/15.2
560SEL was 7.1/15.8
928 - 5.5/13.8 (GT - 5.6/13.8)
M635CSi - 6.0/14.6
I have deliberately given 4 seater times not the equivalent although if you counted a 911 Turbo, that would be the benchmark.
Edited by LuS1fer on Wednesday 6th February 19:09
Thanks for that ^^^
SO it was very much average for its time, and comparable to an AM V8 which surprises me!!
In general driving, compared to my TVR Chimaera, it has various ups and downs:
Ups:
- It's a Ferrari - it's red and has pictures of horses on it.
- The engine is incredibly smooth, and delivers power very progressively, 240BHP is very respectable.
- The build is (despite what people say) very, very good, certainly compared to TVR or my old Lotus.
- It sounds epic in a Ferrari way, not a V8 way (Odd but true)
- service costs are as low as they get for a ferrari, and do-able at home (mostly)
- I have never NOT received a wave back from another ferrari of any age.
downs:
- They rust, but all steel cars of the era do, IE my mini, lancia delta integrale etc....
- The electrics are shocking (no pun intended)
- spares, other than general service bits are VERY expensive, if at all available.
- The electrics are very, very bad
- the drive is very much that of a GT car, its not a sports car (but wasnt designed as one anyway)
- lastly, the electrics arent good, at all.
SO it was very much average for its time, and comparable to an AM V8 which surprises me!!
In general driving, compared to my TVR Chimaera, it has various ups and downs:
Ups:
- It's a Ferrari - it's red and has pictures of horses on it.
- The engine is incredibly smooth, and delivers power very progressively, 240BHP is very respectable.
- The build is (despite what people say) very, very good, certainly compared to TVR or my old Lotus.
- It sounds epic in a Ferrari way, not a V8 way (Odd but true)
- service costs are as low as they get for a ferrari, and do-able at home (mostly)
- I have never NOT received a wave back from another ferrari of any age.
downs:
- They rust, but all steel cars of the era do, IE my mini, lancia delta integrale etc....
- The electrics are shocking (no pun intended)
- spares, other than general service bits are VERY expensive, if at all available.
- The electrics are very, very bad
- the drive is very much that of a GT car, its not a sports car (but wasnt designed as one anyway)
- lastly, the electrics arent good, at all.
Darkcat said:
Thanks for that ^^^
SO it was very much average for its time, and comparable to an AM V8 which surprises me!!
downs:
- They rust, but all steel cars of the era do, IE my mini, lancia delta integrale etc....
- The electrics are shocking (no pun intended)
- spares, other than general service bits are VERY expensive, if at all available.
- The electrics are very, very bad
- the drive is very much that of a GT car, its not a sports car (but wasnt designed as one anyway)
- lastly, the electrics arent good, at all.
Something tells me you have occasional, minor electrical niggles SO it was very much average for its time, and comparable to an AM V8 which surprises me!!
downs:
- They rust, but all steel cars of the era do, IE my mini, lancia delta integrale etc....
- The electrics are shocking (no pun intended)
- spares, other than general service bits are VERY expensive, if at all available.
- The electrics are very, very bad
- the drive is very much that of a GT car, its not a sports car (but wasnt designed as one anyway)
- lastly, the electrics arent good, at all.
And a thought occurred about the 0-60 time. Pretty sure the Mondial's gearbox had first out on a limb with the other four gears in a H pattern. As a result the 1-2 shift took longer and was harder to perfect than in cars with a more conventional layout. But who drives their car like a road tester trying to extract the best 0-60 time? So, other than pub bragging, who cares about 0-60 times?
fourwheelsteer said:
Something tells me you have occasional, minor electrical niggles
And a thought occurred about the 0-60 time. Pretty sure the Mondial's gearbox had first out on a limb with the other four gears in a H pattern. As a result the 1-2 shift took longer and was harder to perfect than in cars with a more conventional layout. But who drives their car like a road tester trying to extract the best 0-60 time? So, other than pub bragging, who cares about 0-60 times?
Now and then ;-) (got through a lot of solder in the last month!!)And a thought occurred about the 0-60 time. Pretty sure the Mondial's gearbox had first out on a limb with the other four gears in a H pattern. As a result the 1-2 shift took longer and was harder to perfect than in cars with a more conventional layout. But who drives their car like a road tester trying to extract the best 0-60 time? So, other than pub bragging, who cares about 0-60 times?
the Mondial's gearbox is shocking until its hot anyway, 2nd and 3rd are basically unavailable.
To me, 0-60 is infinately more important than top speed, i mean really who cares if a car can go over 100? However yes you are right, in daily use as long as its "capable" (ie under 7s) then its mostly irrelevant.
but now and then silly-fast-ness really helps, such as overtaking,, and making the cock in the AMG SL63 who thinks he's god at the lights re-think a bit (TVR as the example)
C36 Nico said:
Would you buy again, knowing what you know now?
Particularily worried about the spares available bit.
Something borks and the part doesnt exist anymore, Im f
ked!
Well ive only had this one 2 months... !!!!Particularily worried about the spares available bit.
Something borks and the part doesnt exist anymore, Im f
ked!BUT no, i dont think i would have another, because i want to get a 348 next - its a bit like getting on the house ownership ladder - you trade up...
Its the Ferrari Boxster.
Edited by Darkcat on Wednesday 6th February 23:35
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff